The nomenclature of guns.

There have been a number of articles recently regarding the terminology we use to designate certain categories of weapons: what is an assault rifle/weapon? what is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon?  I've addressed some of this myself in previous posts (I am not an expert, but I've been doing a modicum of homework on the subject).  Many have pointed out that 'assault rifle' is an extremely vague term--and it is.  Of course, there is only one conclusion to be drawn from this fact, viz., 'assault rifle' is an extremely vague term.  Without introducing further premises you cannot draw the conclusion that assault weapons should not be banned (this may be the case, but simply pointing out the vagaries of the nomenclature won't get you there).  However, I came across an even more interesting term this morning in an article on The Blaze: civilian rifle.  Without any context, I assumed this referred to hunting rifles.  Such rifles can be semi-automatic or entirely manual (they are generally not fully automatic).  However, the article, by Liz Klimas, suggests that the AR15 (the AR stands for Armalite, not Assault Rifle, according to Klimas) is a civilian rifle, a sort of cousin of the M16, the former designed for civilian use (whatever that may be) and the latter for military use.  Klimas is suggesting that there is a hard distinction between the AR15 and the M16, presumably with the intention of defending the former for civilian possession and use.  There are a number of problems here.  The first is historical: the AR15 was not designed by Armalite for civilian use but for military use in the early '50s--indeed, the AR15 seems to have been developed in response to the Operations Research Office, established by the Army in '48, looking for a better ground weapon.  The design was later sold to Colt and Colt marketed it as a civilian rifle.  The second problem has to do with functionality: the AR15 is not really functionally different from the M16--indeed, the M16 is simply the military name for an AR15 that has been slightly modified to be fully automatic.  The fact that the AR15 can be modified in many different ways is precisely what makes the gun so popular. So, sorting out the nomenclature is interesting, and helpful, but does not (on its own) lead to any relevant conclusions).

Here is a video of an AR15 modified to be fully automatic (this process, as far as I can tell, is entirely legal).

Three kinds of gun owner.

This is not a scientific distinction, merely a personal observation made by following the news regarding current efforts to introduce new gun restrictions by both congress and POTUS.  Nevertheless, the division seems fairly accurate if not comprehensive.  People own guns for one or more (they are not mutually exclusive) of three reasons.  The first is recreational: this includes both hunting and target shooting.  The second is for personal safety (and by personal I include protection of the family/household).  By protection, I have in mind here protection against home invaders of whatever sort.  This distinction is important because the last reason is for protection, but of a different sort.  The third reason has to do with protection of personal liberty against tyranny.  There is an entire group that is afraid (rightly or wrongly) that giving up guns (or at least certain kinds) will leave them vulnerable to the whims of a dictator.  All three reasons can be supported by reference to the 2nd Amendment, but the third is the most historically linked to this amendment.  That is, the 2nd Amendment is a reflection of concerns following the Revolutionary War (though not only).  Some of the rhetoric (I hesitate to refer to arguments here) has sparked a very specific question in my mind.

 

I understand and support the right to defend yourself and your rights (though I tend to think your vote will be more powerful than your gun).  But this sort of presentation leads me to ask, "who is holding the gun here?"  When you express your fear that 'they' may come for your guns, do you mean POTUS himself?  Do you mean the members of congress?  If that is the case, I think we could handle that force handily without guns.  However, if you mean the police, the Army, the Navy, Seal Team 6, then you've got some explaining to do.  What you are suggesting here, is that the Army (together with its commanders) is so docile that it would agree to invade its own country, repress its own citizens if so instructed by the government.  I would not rule this out on a priori grounds; but I do find this prospect preposterous at this time.  In order to advance this conversation, I think it important for those who support the 2nd Amendment for the third reason to identify the potential enemy as they see it.  For, if it turns out there isn't one, problem solved.

How An Analogy Works.

Much of the gun-control debate in recent weeks has not really been a debate at all.  Each side is speaking past the other, neither taking the time to understand the other.  Part of the problem is failure to understand certain features of logic, especially the analogy.  Analogies are not metaphors or similes, and they have rules that make them work (or not if they are not followed).  Here is a good example of failure to understand how an analogy works:

Mr. Howe's original analogy may be expressed this way: banning assault weapons is to mass gun violence as banning wrapping paper is to paper cuts.  His implication is, of course, that banning assault weapons is "legislative idiocy" (which it may very well be).  Nevertheless, and this is the important part, an analogy (in this case, a four term analogy--A:B::C:D) suggests that the first and third terms are similar, and the second and fourth are similar.  Take the mathematical analogy, 1:2::4:8.  The analogy establishes that the relationship expressed in the first analog (1:2) and that expressed in the second (4:8) are the same, viz. half.  But notice that you can examine the terms individually as well: 1 and 4 are similar in that they are half of 2 and 8 respectively.  Thus, in Mr. Howe's analogy, despite his objections to the contrary, the Newtown shooting is compared to a paper cut.  This comparison is precisely where Mr. Howe's analogy breaks down (as all analogies do at some point).  However, this is just one example of the faulty use of analogy in this debate.  One Twitter user compared banning guns to prevent gun-violence to banning utensils to prevent obesity.

And on Sean Hannity's show on Fox, Ann Coulter asked:

The simple answer is that in certain areas gun permits are a matter of public record (which is how The Journal News got their information), while medical records are not.  Coulter makes the point that such permits should not be public, and perhaps they shouldn't; but the analogy is not only useless to making the point, it's actually backwards.  I suggest we stop using analogies altogether in this debate.  They are unnecessary given the amount of information we have on gun violence in the US and elsewhere.

Diagnosing a killer.

The last seven days have been occupied by attempts to diagnose the Newtown killing.  Is it a gun problem?  Is it a mental health problem?  Is it a family values problem?  Westboro Baptist thinks gay marriage was the cause.  Megan McArdle thinks we've failed our children by not teaching them to bum-rush a shooter.  Charlotte Allen took second best to McArdle's stupidity--but just barely.  Her diagnosis was that the amount of damage caused by such killers could be reduced significantly if our elementary schools employed more men.  She may be right, but the solution sounds a little like trying to address your body odor problem by simply staying at home--it addresses the symptoms but ignores the cause.  However, Allen's response today pushes her incomprehension to a new level.  At the end of her apologia, she has a look at the Newtown Public Schools website (which she mistakenly refers to as the Sandy Hook web site), disparagingly noting that their safety page contains a bunch of links to anti-bullying web sites.
We don't yet know if Lanza was bullied, but bullying is often a factor in these kinds of shootings.  Indeed, bullying--even on Facebook--is its own serious problem that needs to be addressed--or has Allen forgotten Amanda Todd.

In the wake of tragedy...

...and after the grief, we begin to diagnose.  Was the killer insane?  Did he have a motive?  Was he bullied?  What role did his family life play?  What role did gun laws in his region play?  Some of these will be answered in time.  Others will remain unclear.  What is clear is that there can be no effective treatment/prevention without a proper diagnosis.  Certain commentators will present extremely ill-considered preventative measures in part because they haven't the patience for diagnostics; to wit, Newsweek's Megan McArdle suggests we teach children that is it best to rush the gunman in these and similar situations.  This will reduce the number of casualties.

Others will turn to god for answers.  Certainly this is a less ill-advised reaction.  Nevertheless, god can be used to make rash (to say the least) diagnoses.  After Westboro Baptist threatened to picket Sandy Brook Elementary, claiming, as they always do, that the massacre was the direct result of homosexuality, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson has followed suit.

Never waste a good tragedy.

Notice the relation between the first tweet and the last. 

Some people just can't resist trying to score a political point.